tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC February 14, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
>> you can accept the fact that other countries have different ways of doing things but this is the saudi arabia di government that countenance it had murder of a journalist who was a critic. a guy who wasn't trying to take down the saudi government, he was a guy who said this is how we have to change to be better. >> this doesn't even include what the saudis do to their own people on a daily basis, as if that's somehow okay. as if we don't understand how things work there. >> right. right. >> come on. >> tom barrack comes by this honestly. good to see you, my friend. have a good afternoon. >> you, too. this is going to be a busy hour for congress as it prepares to vote on the compromise security bill aimed at preventing another government shutdown. we'll monitor that and bring it to you as it happens. first, you have got to be tough to make in the new york city. that from the city's mayor after amazon's stunning decision to cancel its planned headquarters in new york. you may remember, amazon went all out, they put on quite the show when it announced its nationwide search for its new headquarters. it collected information on cities, detailed intimate
information from cities coast to coast before announcing quite predictably that it would land in new york city and northern virginia just outside of d.c. the announcement fuelled protests and a fierce debate between locals and city and state leaders. in a statement today, amazon said, quote, after much thought and deliberation we have decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for amazon in long island city, queens. while polls show that 70% of new yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and won't work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project. the planned hq 2 was to bring 25,000 jobs to long island city. long island city is in queens just across the east river from manhattan. folks in that area were already concerned about rising rents and a failing subway system but city and state leaders argued that
bringing in a giant tech company was going to help diversify the new york city economy and will help everyone when the next recession comes along. new york city mayor bill de blasio helped broker the deal. he tweeted today we gave amazon the opportunity to be a good neighbor and to do business in the greatest any the world instead of working with the community, amazon threw away that opportunity. congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez who represents a neighboring district had a posed to plan. she said this. >> those jobs, there was no guarantee that those jobs were for new yorkers that were here. we were looking at a deal that was not primarily putting the community first and i think that we can answer cloutly come together to create an economic plan that invests in new yorkers in higher wages and in a dign y dignified life. >> i want to talk about this in all of its facets because it's important. joining me now, staff writer for the "atlantic," derek thompson
who has been watching this closely. what's your impression of this a view hours in? good, bad? what happened. >> my impression is simple, amazon got what it deserved and new york city got exactly what it deserved. corporate subsidies when they're not pernicious are at the very least pointless. >> okay. >> giving away $3 billion to a company that's trying to grow its advertising business in the capital of global advertising in new york city is pointless. amazon is going to expand its job presence, its footprint here anyway. we shouldn't be spending precious city resources on this company when we have all these housing problems, all of these subway problems, i just tried to take the subway here. new york city has issues. but we have housing affordability issues, not employment issues so we're spending money and time in the wrong place. so for people who say hey, it could have been great, you only need look at san francisco and seattle and new york city for that matter to understand that middle-class people, the creative class as richard florida calls them, can't live
in this city. they can't live in the city. i was mentioning earlier one of the reasons there's no graffiti in new york city is it's too much of a commute for the graffiti artists. there wasn't going to be a solution to that by amazon coming in on the taxpayer dime. >> right. i think it's important for cities across the country, especially at a time of middle-class precarity, at a time when housing construction is so important, we have a shortage of houses, we need to build more places for people to live so they can afford a middle-class life-style, the issue is not corporate welfare. every year american cities spend $90 billion on corporate subsidies. dragging company headquarters across state lines, adding zero new jobs in terms of net new jobs and -- >> moving jobs. >> shuffling jobs around. $90 billion is more than the. from spends on education, affordable housing or infrastructure. >> wow. >> it's an enormous waste of money. >> but won't people say we get
something for it? we get 25,000 people who buy things and pay taxes, yes, no? or you're saying they were buying things and paying for other things. >> the first answer is new york city doesn't have not an employment problem. we have a housing affordability problem and we should fix that problem with municipal policy. number two, i think it's important to say amazon already has a presence here. they have 5,000 jobs in, no. they have 25, 00 jobs at a fulfillment center in staten island and more in manhattan west in a big office that they lease two entire floors of. they're going to expand in new york city anyway and it's good for small companies, medium-sized companies, large companies, global behemoths to expand in new york city, right? it's a good thing for the city to have. but what the city should be doing is building the best possible new york for every citizen from the lower class, the upper class and expect the people that l want to come. companies will want to come to a
great city. >> it's a great city for the rich. let me bring in jacob ward our nbc news technology correspondent. jacob, derek and i have talked about this before but it's important to point out, in this hunt for locations for hong kong 2, there was a sense that amazon may go to some place that could benefit from its largesse and move the needle in some place that has employment problems as derek says that we don't have in new york city. but in that process, amazon went to over 200 cities and garnered remarkable day that amazon is somehow going to use to its benefit. >> that's right. ali, you have to assume with a company like amazon that the plan is not just for this location or the next location but 10 locations down the line. that is company that's trying to expand to serve you absolutely everything you could ever consume so the 238 cities they got proposals from each had to turn over between five and ten individual sites that they thought would meet all the requirements that amazon has.
as a result they have thousands of physical locations that they've done all the due diligence on. and out of that they'll make all kinds of decisions about we're going to have a latin american hq here, fulfillment centers here, here's where the cutting edge r&d stuff will happen. they know which cities will work for that so this is one little move in a larger chess game they're playing. >> but when you look at it, to some degree there's a question about whether -- we talked to the state senator in new york who was opposed to this thing who was going to be the one to put the nail in the coffin, amazon did it themselves. but he said amazon's not bigger than new york city. maybe blustery but there's some question about whether amazon is bigger than these cities given what it is able to extract from cities. >> it's true. the extractive economy of courting these companies has become a real drag on a lot of cities and i think you and derek were making an interesting point
earlier. right now the calculus of city leaders and corporations in negotiating over relocating to a certain city is based on an era when that meant new jobs for people not just in that city but in that specific location. i mean, back when you would relocate an airplane manufacturing facility to the outskirts of los angeles you could bring people in to build those airplanes. >> let me interrupt you for a second. i want to go to the senate floor where mitch mcconnell has just said he supports the president's signing the new deal. there's some question as to whether the president is going to sign it, mcconnell has said he believes donald trump is going to sign it. let's listen in. >> so far all of my colleagues. the president will sign the bill, we'll be voting on it shortly and with that i ask the chair to lay before the senate the conference report to company house joint resolution 31.
>> the clerk will report. >> the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment of the senate to the joint resolution hj res 31 having met have agreed that the house recede from its disagreement the amendment of the senate and agree to the same with an amendment and the senate agree to the same. signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both houses. >> i'll sign the cloture motion to the desk for the conference report. >> let's go to capitol hill. kasie hunt is standing by. kasie, there's some question about whether or not the president would sign the deal and now it appears that not only does mitch mcconnell say he'll sign it but that there will be a emergency declaration about the wall? >> lots of news in what mitch mcconnell just said on the senate floor. there had been a lot of nervousness today about senate republicans. that's why -- among senate republicans about whether the president would sign this bill. that's why it's so late in the
afternoon and we still haven't seen movement until just now so mitch mcconnell going to the senate floor saying he spoke with the president. the president says he intends to sign the government funding bill to prevent another shutdown. mitch mcconnell also saying that the president indicated he's going ask at the same time issue a declaration of national emergency at the southern border and mcconnell, somewhat remarkably, saying that he would support that emergency declaration. that had been something many republicans here on capitol hill had been opposed to. mitch mcconnell himself even warning the president against going that route, apparently a little change of heart here leads to some questions about what has been going on behind the scenes because the reality is that this has been dragged out for quite some time and nervousness had been ratcheting up all day. republicans were behind closed doors at lunch and my colleague leigh ann caldwell reported several came out and indicated
they wanted this assurance from the president before they voted on it. others were prepared to just go forward and seemed to think an overwhelming vote could sway the president in favor but really deep concern about being embarrassed yet again that this president might say one thing or indicate one thing and do something else that would embarrass his republican colleagues in the u.s. senate so this again overall positive news for keeping the government open. an indication there won't be a shutdown over the weekend because congress can move expeditiously to get this done. what you just saw and heard it was senate speak for getting the process rolling, mitch mcconnell filing what's called a cloture motion, that sets up the vote that has the 60-vote threshold to get this moving and then there, of course, will be a final vote. now moving through those steps quickly takes all 100 members of the u.s. senate. they have to sign off and say it's okay for the leader to take
those kinds of steps at that speed so him doing that indicates that's where they are right now and we'd been hearing democrats were ready to go for several hours. the nervousness was on the republican side. >> i rely on you to keep us honest. with what certainty with k we say this? as always happens, something can happen between capitol hill and 1600 pennsylvania. with mitch mcconnell saying the president will sign it and will declare a national emergency, do you feel in your bones some certain they will happen? >> you know what, al sni i cover congress, don't cover the white house.i? i cover congress, don't cover the white house. usually when we have a shutdown, it's congress that's the problem. usually a president for a variety of reasons, they're incentivized by making it look like their government is working well. they also in the past have tended to be predictable what
you, i think, as someone who is familiar with economic theory would refer to as a rational actor, someone who has a predictable set of actions based on what we conceive their self-interest to be. this president doesn't act that way and it's caused a breakdown in trust which you've seen over the course of today. between the president and frankly the allies he needs the most here in the u.s. senate. so to try to answer your question, this does answer a big piece of it. we were sitting here waiting and waiting and every hour that went by we were nervous that this whole thing could fall apart. so this says mitch mcconnell was willing to go there and publicly say i spoke to the president, he said he plans to sign it, here's the other action he's going to ta take. that's aimed at reassuring his own members they can vote for this without being embarrassed. does that mean the president will follow through? who knows? probably.
but maybe not. i think clearly whatever it is he said gave mcconnell enough reason to urge his fellow senators to vote yes. and, remember, it was mcconnell who was the most badly embarrassed by when this happened the last time. >> let's bring kelly o'donnell in. kelly is at the white house and see what the other side of the phone sounds like of this deal. are you hearing rumblings at the white house that match what we heard from mitch mcconnell? >> well the word we have been given here is that these hours that have gone by without a clear sign and the place holder that the president tweeted out about reviewing the funding measure were about buying time and giving him an opportunity to review this. as you know there are outside conservative voices who don't like this deal. at the same time, the kind of partners the president has to have -- meaning the legislators on capitol hill -- worked through a process that they believe in. this team of 17 negotiators who
did all the work themselves without much interference, if any, from the white house or speaker pelosi believing in that process. for mitch mcconnell, as kasie described, to put his own credibility squarely on the line by saying i just spoke to the president, here's what he told me he would do, seems as clear a sign that this is the plan. what we also have is that in addition to the funding bill which resolves the issue of any government shutdown that would not be taking place, it sets in motion new funding for the department of homeland security which includes more fencing and other kinds of enhancements to border security. the president appeared to be willing to go with his own executive branch sweetener. some kind of national emergency declaration which is allowed under the law but republicans have said they did not want him to do that. republicans in the senate fearing the precedent it had set. also the idea of drawing money
from other things to be used for wall is not the typical process lawmakers want to see happen. so officials at the white house have not told us. they said this is waiting twriem the president is reviewing things but it seems highly unlikely that mitch mcconnell, a man who doesn't take chances, would offer words of reassurance right before the vote to get the vote. also it strikes me that part of what the president tried to do is run out the clock a bit, to keep his critics at bay by not showing his hand therefore they can't attack in the same way. they can offer their opinion but can't rip him apart until this is signed and becomes law and then it's a moot point so my sense is the president is looking for a way to add his own authority, sign the bill and try to keep outside voices from getting in the way. that's my take on this. >> appreciate that. stand by kelly and kasie because
part of what that kelly interprets the president adding his own authority is the part about the emergency declaration, that's the part president trump undertakes in order to fund his wall. let's listen to more of what mitch mcconnell said specifically about that. >> he's indicated he's prepared to sign the bill. he will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time and i've indicated to him that i'm going to support the national emergency declaration. so for all of my colleagues, the president will sign the bill, we'll be voting on it shortly and -- >> kasie, just worth noting, not everybody, not all republicans on capitol hill support that part of things. the emergency declaration. >> that's right and mitch mcconnell warned the white house that in the event they did that and house democrats decided to object, they could pass what's known around here as a privileged resolution that mitch mcconnell would be forced to hold a vote on the senate floor
about and that the president could lose the vote because of the level of opposition to this. and kelly's point is the right one on the outside voices. if you watched how the coverage has changed over the course of the week, paid close attention to sean hannity, this is what he started suggesting, okay, fine, it might be the best we can get, that's the democrats' fault but you better not do it if you don't declare a national emergency so i read this as the sign of the president rejecting his congressional allies at the expense of -- rather in favor of conservative radio hosts. now, of course, he is going along with his congressional allies on the big question which is the shutdown. i leader hoyer, do you have a moment to chat? we've heard the president is going to sign this legislation. what's your reaction? mitch mcconnell said he spoke to the president, the president is inclined to sign it but he will declare a national emergency
simultaneously. do you think that's the right plan? >> no. i do not. i think declaring a national emergency where there is no national emergency is not good for the president to do and, frankly, i don't think it's good for precedent for future presidents and i think a lot of republicans share that view. i am pleased, however, that he's said -- apparently, i don't know, you're telling me -- that he is inclined. that's a hedge word, inclined, either is going to sign it or not. >> mitch mcconnell was more definitive. he said the president indicated he was going to sign the bill. >> fine, i'm happy to hear that. this was a conference report. it's been hard fought. there was differences of opinion. nobody got everything they wanted but it's the product, i think, of a good legislative process with a lot of responsible people so i'm pleased the president will sign it. we need to keep government open
and operating and we need to pass a new bill for for 2019 as opposed to continue on the funding levels or priorities we had in 2018. >> quickly, before i let you go, are there other issues and priorities in the country more deserving of a national emergency declaration than what's going on at the border? >> i do. but more importantly, the director of national intelligence former republican senator from indiana, coats, who the president appointed as director to tell him where the crisis in the country, he did so just about a few days ago, a week ago, and he didn't mention the southwest border at all as being either an emergency or a challenge. now i think it is a challenge, i think we need to have secure borders but it is not, it is not a national emergency. >> leader hoyer, thank you for stopping to say hello to us. >> there you have it, ali.
i think we'll see both democrats and republicans opposed to this national emergency idea and you could see congress act against that. leader hoyer mentioned the idea of it setting a precedent that interferes with congress and the rights to determine where the money is spend but i think there will be a sigh of relief on capitol hill that the president has finally apparently indicated his intentions on what they're going to do because it has been a nail-biting afternoon as the hours have dragged on. >> thank you, kasie, for not only that but getting steny hoyer on for us. kelly, about ten days ago garrett haake spoke to john cornyn, texas senator who said that -- i'm quoting -- declaring a national emergency would be a dangerous step because the precedent it sets and because the president will get sued and it won't succeed in accomplishing his goal and three because i think mrs. pelosi will introduce a resolution which will pass the house and come over here and divide republicans
which is what kasie was talking about. they can do that sort of thing. how is that being calculated in the white house right now? >> one fight at a time. so if the president goes forward with a national emergency declaration using that unilateral power, he can try to quiet conservative voices and should that kind of response come from congress, that becomes a new battle for another day instead of a long-term policy approach from this which is what the appropriations process that braug th brought thus bill in the first place was intended to. do you heard leader hoyer say not everybody get what is they want but it was the result of hard work. but if you add on a layer of national emergency -- and there are a number of national emergencies that have been declared by presidents of both parties for things like swine flu or bird flu and 9/11 and things of that nature or disaster emergencies where they needed to access funding in an
urgent way that hadn't had the time to be properly appropriated through the longer process so if that happens and you get the li slingshot back from capitol hill which could become bipartisan that becomes a fight to carry on at another time which would engage outside conservative voices where it's sean hannity or laura ingraham or whomever else and it becomes this is what the democrats are doing so as the white house calculate what is is the cost of this to the president, he can i say went along with congress, i said i would sign it and he want to draw funds and perhaps expanding the 55 miles of new fencing, let me be clear about that, he might be able to secure enough money to somehow make that bigger and more dramatic and claim that as a victory and fight for another day. that would be my sense of it,
we're in these iterations of what the exigencies of this day and will forestall what might come later. >> we should remind people in the $5.7 billion the president is asking for is also a red herring because the lowest estimates for the president's wall are in $22 billion range and there are some estimates that put it higher than that so that wouldened even get him where he needs to be. kelly, i'm so grateful for you and kasie. we'll stay close to kelly and kasesy as this develops over the course of the next hour. nbc news is reporting president trump was blocking a measure to give back pay to federal contractors who were affected by the shutdown. that was the sticking point in this legislation. remember while some 800,000 federal workers got back pay, some are still getting it, by the way, 1.2 million federal contractors will not -- unless their employers, who are not the government, choose to give it to them. contractors are people who work
for the federal government indirectly in jobs the government has outsourced to private companies. they missed out on their paychecks during the shutdown as well. roy blunt told nbc news i guess federal contractors are different in his view than federal employees. joining me is one of those people, federal contractor lila johnson who has been working in cleaning services for the federal government for 21 years. she missed paychecks for entire month of january. didn't get paid for 35 days and she is still struggling to pay her bills. ms. lila, good to see you again, thank you for joining us. >> nice being here, thank you for having me. >> i'm sorry to bring you back to have the discussion but it had a great impact on me. you do work for all accidents and purposes for the federal government but you work for a private company and as a result you are not getting back pay. >> that's true. >> and you support your great grandchildren, is that correct? >> yes, i have two. one is soon to be 15 and the
other just turned six and i've had them ever since they were born. >> so how did you get through it? >> with the help of my family, friends and an organization call god fund me and church members. i was barely making it through but i made it. i made it up until now but i a whole lot of bills, my bills are still behind so i'll take one day at a time and try to do the best i can to catch them up. my company that i work for, integrativ, they give us a little donation and i want to thank my manager for doing that for us because we never had
another contractor to everybody think about the employees. it's hard that. people have to get that loan, working the contract and at the end no money. it's very hard catching up back bills. i had to even go into my insurance policy to get money for my insurance policy to make ends meet. i'll have to pay that money back because if i have death in my family they'll take that money out before i get the insurance money for the policy. >> how are the kids handling this? did they sense there was a problem? >> the oldest one, he did. the youngest one he'd just say grandma not working today, she's home with me, yay. but the oldest one is old enough
to understand what's going on. >> know you told my producer you took them out for an a dinner at an all you can eat buffet to cheer them up. >> yes, i had fun with them and they had a happy face and they enjoyed hanging out with me, my two daughters which the other one is their biological mother but we had fun that night. we let them just eat as much as they wanted to have fun so it was great doing that because that's something i always did with them, either movies, out to dinner go bowling. something in that category to do fun night. >> miss lila, we're hearing the president is likely to sign this bill and avoid another shutdown but this has caused real anxiety for you. the concept of living under the
threat of a shutdown which has a much more direct affect on you than it does on me, for instance, has caused you anxiety. >> yes, it did. my blood pressure went up. you know at first when the shutdown start ed i was at my lowest point because i had serious problem with my blood pressufrespressure which i had k done and every time i went to the dentist my blood pressure was so high he couldn't do the work i went to him to do so it was really stressful for me. it was really stressful. >> we were just listening to chuck shuker on the floor of the senate who said he's going to still work on getting back pay for federal contractors. this didn't make it into the bill and members of congress said they couldn't get an agreement on it. how does that make you feel? >> it makes me feel awful. it makes me feel terrible.
we deserve back pay just like government employees do. >> ms. lila, i my you do. i think people like you, over the years we have farmed out your work which used to be paid for by taxpayers directly to private companies and we need to think of you as people who help the federal government go on because the cleaning that you do is the stuff that is required. you and your colleagues who are security guards and work to make a living. so we'll stay in touch and i hope you get caught up on your bills very soon. >> thank you very much for having me. nice talking to you. >> lila johnson, a cleaning services employee with the department of agriculture. >> nbc news's cal perry is in san bonito, texas. what's going on? >> we are hearing the news the president will likely sign the appropriations bill and declare a state of emergency.
in part because the president and a lot of people seem frustrated with, frankly, the existing legal practice that leaves giant holes in the wall like the one you can see next to me. in the original appropriations bill we read there were certain things exempted from the wall here in the rio grande valley, one is a church, another is a national butterfly center. keep in mind, the original proerpgs appropriations bill was not going to be built in california. but let's be clear, the court system in the u.s. needs to run that through. there's plenty of people south of here between this wall and the actual boarder who are cut off from the rest of america, there's plenty of private land owners who are going to challenge this in court, not to mention churches and national parks and things like that.
that's going to need to be carried out, ali. >> cal, we're going to listen into nancy pelosi who's reacting to what the president has said. stand by. >> good afternoon, everyone, thank you for coming later in the day. as you probably are aware this morning we celebrated the life of chairman john dingell at holy trinity church in georgetown and right now many of our colleagues are in north carolina to, again, celebrate the life of walter jones, our colleague from north carolina. a beautiful, lovely man. i served with him and his father, two different partees to, his father a democrat, walter a republican but both of them southern gentlemen, patriotic americans, both of the joneses and certainly walter jones and john dingell. today is also a day of sadness because it marks the one year anniversary of the parkland
tragedy of gun violence. one year ago, america's heart was broken by the horrific act of violence in barkland, florida. today we remember the 17 lives stolen from u.s. then. i'm very pleased that last night the house judiciary committee under the leadership of jerry nadler with the full participation of our members took a strong step to end the epidemic of gun violence around advanced hr 8, the bipartisan common sense background check legislation. our committees are hard at work, i'm very proud of our freshmen. i think i said to you before in this freshman class we had 18 chairs of subcommittees to contrast that to the -- another historic freshman class, the watergate babies when they came in with the size and enthusiasm that they did, they didn't have one subcommittee chair in the
first year that they took office so we're proud 1800 of them have gavels. they come enthusiastic and well prepared. all of the members, especially our subcommittee chairs. so we're hard at work on our for the people agenda. while we're waiting for the senate to pass the conference report, the bipartisan bicameral conference report which i understand is imminent in the senate and we'll vote on it later today so that's real progress, i think, for us to have left it to the appropriators to make the decisions, come up with a bicameral bipartisan bill that we can overwhelmingly support. but at the same time we are working on our for the people agenda. the for the people agenda said it was going to lower health care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs, we've already had a committee -- the
committees, the ways and means committee and the oversight committee -- government reform and oversight committee have had hearings on the price of prescription drugs. our second point in the for the people agenda was to lower health care costs, bigger paychecks by building the infrastructure of america and last week the transportation infrastructure committee held a hearing with representatives of the private and public sector, major of los angeles representing our nation's may mayors, governors and others participating there. thirty point or for the people agenda is hr 1 to reduce the role of big dark special interest money in politics, lower voter suppression and increase the voice of everyday americans in our political system, to restore confidence in our political system and we've
already had an outside of washington hearing under the leadership of marcia fudge in brownsville, texas, with great participation from the members, including our distinguished mr. kye burn participating and here this week we've had homeland security committee having a hearing on hr 1 as it relates to the integrity of our elections and the health administration committee having a hearing on that as well. part of our first 10 resolutions of the house, the first 10 bills we're pleased that we're include advancing the for the people agenda but also hr 8, the gun violence prevention bill. and mr. clyburn's initiative on
the fix for south carolina which has bipartisan bicameral support. just a word on the agreement that we will be voting on later today, in addition to the pieces on homeland security which are very important, by the way, the homeland security budget is a big budget. it's not just ant the mexico border. it's about ice cutters in off of alaska and other parts of our border are that are not necessarily just the southern part and i'm pleased that some long-advocated for pieces are now in that budget as well so when you talk about the size of the budget it's broader than the u.s./mexico border. but the bill that is -- we will be passing is a long overdue pay
raise for federal employees to make them on a par with military employees as they have been. an additional $1 million for the census to combat the administration's assault and to ensure a fair, accurate count. $3 billion for the opioid epidemic and hiring more police officers. $17 billion to rebuild america's infrastructure. billions of dollars in support of small businesses, more than $9 billion to protect clean air, clean water and public lands. $9.1 billion in security assistance for our allies and $7.4 billion for global health and nutrition assistance. so we have the six appropriation bills that are agreed to and not as controversial and then the homeland security bill which produced the result that today we will keep government open and
that's important for the american people but we will do so and protect our borders and our values. >> reporter: madam speaker, the president said he will declare a national emergency when he sign this is bill. do you still plan to file a legal challenge if and when he does that and how quickly? >> did i ever say i was filing a legal challenge? i may, that's an option. and we'll review our options but it's important to note that when the president declares this emergency, first of all, it's not an emergency, what's happening at the border. it's a humanhumanitarian. the president has tried to sell a bill of goods to the american people. putting that aside in terms of the president making an end run around congress, here he said let us respect what the committee will do and walks away from it but the president is
doing an end run around congress, you've heard me say article 1, the legislative branch, the power of the purse, power to declare war and of course the response to have oversight so the president is doing an end run around that. we won't review our options -- we'll review our options, we'll be prepared to respond appropriately to it. i know the republicans have some unease about it no matter what they say because if the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion he wants to convey just think about what the president can present to the american people. you want to talk about a national emergency? let's talk about today the one year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in america. that's a national emergency.
declare that an emergency, mr. president, i wish you would. but a democratic president can do that. so the precedent the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by republicans and we respond accordingly when we review our options. first we have to see what the president actually says. >> reporter: to that end, there has been discussion of a resolution in the house that might force republicans to go on the record. is that an option? >> i'm saying we are reviewing our options. we have to see what the president will say. i don't believe that the -- there's any good faith negotiations to have with the republicans in congress if they're going to support the president doing an end run around the will of the people, the congress of the united states has put forth so we will review our options and i'm not prepared to give any preference to any one of them right now.
yes, sir. >> on the news in the past couple of moments, the president told the senate majority leader he would sign the bill. you must be pleased with that. but on the national emergency, does that change the vote calculus at all? obviously if you have the president saying he's going to sign a piece of legislation, you would say okay i would vote for that. but that caveat could peel votes away. >> let's just the vote, chad. that's very interesting but let's just have the vote. >> reporter: but that changes the support one way or the other? >> i don't know. probably more of an influence in the united states senate. we have the votes in the house. but it is interesting to see how the vote has -- the president has said to the republican leadership in the senate, senator shelby, a senior appropriator, the chairman of the appropriations committee there, respected leader in the united states senate, i don't have confidence in what you did
even though the president failed to convince the american people and their representatives in congress of his position. but let's just see what the votes are. who knows what the calculus is on the other side. i don't -- >> reporter: doesn't affect your side? >> no. >> reporter: madam speaker, as far as the gun control bill or background check bill, you just said a national emergency should be declared -- >> could be declared. if you want to talk about national emergencies, that's a national emergency. >> reporter: is that's something you'd like to see a president declare -- >> no, i'm saying a president could do that. if you want to go down that path, let's look at what is a national emergency. i'm not advocating for any president to do an end run around congress, i'm saying the republicans should have some dismay about the door they are opening, the threshold they are crossing. >> reporter: in your opening comments you spoke about the freshman class. there have been a number of
viral moments some of these new democratic members -- >> that's a word, viral, viral, vira viral. viral moments of the freshman. >> reporter: have you thought of their influence? do they have an outsized influence you've never seen before? >> no. this is -- welcome to the democratic party. we are not a rubber stamp for anybody. we are not a monolist, we never have been and who would want to lead a party that would be described that way? the members come, they bring their enthusiasms. their priorities. we welcome that. they're not programmed. they are spontaneous, prepared and i'm proud of them. okay? yes, sir. >> reporter: you mentioned the anner ha veniversary of parklan legislation you bring to the floor enjoyed broad support. other legislation not quite as
popular in the country although more popular among the democratic caucus than probably ever. are you committed to bringing to the floor some further legislation to that such as the restoration of a ban on assault-style weapons? >> well, the committee -- the judiciary committee and committees of jurisdiction will review any proposals that we have on any subject and what they have prioritized -- in addition to the committee we have a task force headed up by congressman mike thompson of california who has worked in a bipartisan way to protect the american people. what are the measures that save the most lives? and how do we get them into law? a proposal that turns into legislation that passes as law that makes a difference in the lives of the american people and it's up to the committee and task force to make their proposals as we go forward. we do think that keeping guns
out the hands of people who shouldn't have them probably saves the most lives. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> oh, happy valentine's day. all we need is love and chocolate. i what time a>> reporter: what voting? can we still go to valentine's day dinner? >> that would be the hope. it depends on how soon the senate takes up the bill. we said that we wouldn't vote before 6:30 because that's when our members come back from north carolina but we hope not to have it be one minute after that so you'll have time for dinner. thank you all very much. >> speaker nancy pelosi leaving after answering a few questions. the white house by the way, nancy pelosi was saying we have to wait to see what the president does. we're closer to understanding that because the white house
released a statement, it says president trump will sign the government funding bill and as he has stated before he will take other executive action including a national emergency to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. the president is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border and secure our great country. that was issued by sarah huckabee sanders moments ago. kelly o'donnell joins us now from the white house. since last we spoke kelly 25 minutes ago a number of things have developed. we have confirmed what mitch mcconnell told the senate was going to happen. we've heard from nancy pelosi an we have confirmation from the white house that the president will sign the bill which mean we avert a government shutdown but the government moves on to a national emergency. you said earlier the president -- i'm paraphrasing -- was seeking cover here. he controls the theirty with the national emergency. >> and taking a quick look at those conservative outside
voices, some of their early reviews of the legislation itself are harsh so you can see why the president would be drawn to use some other power and he's talked about a national emergency for weeks and weeks and only now willing to pull the trigger because there are many downsides to it and you heard speaker pelosi talk about the fact she has legal options she would consider and weigh and in a very true to her form not getting ahead of herself saying she won't offer a favorite among her options right now but outlined how gun violence today on the anniversary of the parkland shooting could also be considered a national emergency that a president, any president, might consider as worthy of that kind of declaration so you see where this debate could go. the president may be quieting one corner -- the outside voices who wanted him to get more and do more, at the same time keeping a lid on things at
capitol hill because as speaker nancy pelosi said, her members will vote as expected, they will deliver this bill to the president's desk with the majority they have on the house side and the reassurance we saw from leader mcconnell in the senate to encourage and perhaps relieve and worries or fears among members who would be worried about taking this vote that, yes, the president would sign it. so the fact that we have been able to see a statement from leader mcconnell, get the white house to confirm it, normally that would not be a news event. today that is a news event that they lined up exactly where they needed to be in agreement and it's worth pointing that out. that's not something we take for granted? >> correct. >> but it appears to be rolling along towards passage, providing funding in a lot of different ways as the speaker laid out. then we open a whole new box of questions. what will the extent of the national emergency be? how will the president define it?
what legal challenges will come abouting from a partner in standing if you will, the speaker of the house, meaning they could be injured by this if they're bringing a legal challenge or individual land or land owners as calipari was talking about, a wall or barrier or eminent domain was taken, could that pose a challenge? we don't know if the president making a declaration to the point of being able to see any result from it, that's a big question. what would the time horizon be? we don't have answers to that yes. >> kelly, stand by, i want to bring in garrett haake and kasie hunt. garrett is monitoring the senate vote and kasie was just in with speaker pelosi. kasie, you asked speaker pelosi a question about her options. certainly there are a lot of questions right now to what is it in her hands to do? >> ali, there are a number of options on the table. she was asked first about potential legal options.
that's something that democrats here on capitol hill could potentially be directly involved in, but it could be also something that comes from active disputes or elsewhere. that legal challenge i would imagine is all but assured if this in fact moves forward and the sense of been in the event the president was headed for another shutdown, this could be a preferable way to handle it because it would avert the immediate crisis and kick it to the courts. i think we can likely expect that to happen regardless. there are some other options the democrats in the house could use to potentially put republicans in a tough spot on this. you heard nancy pelosi talk a little bit about what is at stake here. and one of those options would be to pass what's known as a privileged resolution in the house, to essentially condemn what the president has done. that would force a vote in the senate. so mitch mcconnell would have to have all of his senators in the republican conference actually go on the record saying whether or not they support the president. we know mcconnell had warned
president trump against this national emergency for this very reason, because it could be an embarrassing spectacle for republicans to have to break in public with president trump. now, when i asked her about that, she wouldn't commit to it directly. she only said they're looking at all of their options but that's certainly one way they could go. and she also warned, she was pressed about this a little bit too, the precedent this sets is pretty remarkable. of course, what goes around comes around in washington, and democrats are likely to control the white house at some point in the future, and obviously the priorities of a democratic president tend to be different. she brought up the example of gun violence. that's one a lot of republicans, i think, who have been very supportive of the second amendment, very emotional and core issue to a lot of their core voters, that could potentially put them in a difficult spot. if they say to the president it's okay for him to do this now making a political statement about an emergency that many don't necessarily think rises to
this level that he has put it, that they could really re-brett that later on. and she was also careful to say sh she doesn't think any president has this authority to supersede the congress. >> that is what surprised me when mitch mcconnell saidp on the floor of the senate not only would the president sign the bill being put before the congress but he would declare a national emergency and mitch mcconnell would support that. mitch mcconnell has not only not weighed in that territory but specifically avoided it. nonetheless, are we looking at the vote on the senate floor now? >> yes, right now we're watching the cloture vote, the procedural vote. this is the one that counts. you have to hit 60 votes to get to the next stage. we don't call votes while they're still open, and this vote is still open, they crossed the 60-vote threshold so we know this will pass, and the procedural hurdle means it will
pass. the no votes we are seeing are an interesting combination of people here. we are seeing most of the democratic presidential candidates who are in the field peel off and vote against this bill. that's cory booker, elizabeth warren, kyrstin gillibrand, kamala harris voted no. a larger number than at least i anticipated of republicans are voting against this bill, even with the president saying he would sign it. folks like marco rubio and pat toomey who are on the right but certainly not the people who usually throw sand in the gears on these sorts of things and folks like rand paul, mike lee, who tend to be the folks who through sand on the gear. >> are you saying there's a chance it won't pass? >> no, i want to make clear it will pass but it's notable even with the president's endorsement of this bill, they're losing a lot of republican votes on this. i think the fact that democratic presidential contenders are voting against it is not terribly surprising, that's the dynamic we've seen throughout. but this will get across the 60-vote threshold.
it will pass the senate. i don't think there's a ghost of a chance mitch mcconnell would have brought it to the floor if he were concerned about that total number. it will be interesting to do the forensics later and figure out why all of the republicans decided to vote against it. the simple answer may be they just don't know everything in it. in 1,100 or so page bill is a large piece of under any circumstances, nonetheless 24 hours to review it. >> i spoke with lila johnson a little while ago, federal contract worker, works for a private company as a cleaner in the department of agriculture. that was not in the bill. the back pay for federal contractors. >> ali, this is something democrats very much wanted to see in the bill at the very end. they wanted to have contractors made whole for the shutdown. what we heard from republicans on capitol hill yesterday was that the white house nixed this. roy blunt, one of the congressional negotiators here, republican, said they were told directly by the white house this is not something they wanted in this bill. what you ended up having was a
bill very narrowly focused on the actual dhs appropriations part of it. it didn't have nearly as many -- i won't say none -- of the usual additions, goodies, riders, things that members like to tack on to big bills like this because they know it's a must-pass sort of thing. that stayed out of this bill. democrats have said they're going to try to find other avenues to make those people whole in the future. >> kelly, we heard that was a sticking point. i'm still not clear for whom it was a sticking point. was that something -- we heard one of the senators say that the president had an issue with the back pay for federal workers, for federal contract workers. >> i don't have a readout on that specific element but i think there is an argument that has sometimes been made in the circumstance of shutdowns of the taxpayer is not getting the full value of its dollars because someone was paid to not work. that is a very unpopular view
for the people who are, through no fault of their own, cut off from their paychecks. if that's the view of the president directly or a policy view here, it would seem that politically it was much more sellable that you would make whole the contractors. so we don't have a sense yet of exactly where that was coming from and why that was a factor. it is also possible that that could be something that was held as an item of value to be used in another negotiation. sometimes that happens as well, like the violence against women act. that is something -- >> also not included, correct. >> and sometimes they will hold something back in order to use it in norm pieanother piece of legislation to draw votes towards the legislation to help get it cross the line. so it's not so much about the substance of it but tactically how they can cobble together votes that may be a part of this. we don't have a chlor answer about t clear answer about the
contractors. in the president's business life, he's often talked about not paying contractors in the business trades if he didn't feel their work was sufficient. when you hear talk of federal contractors, very different circumstances and not paying them, there's this thread that seems to connect it. and yet we don't have clarification from the white house about the genesis of that. >> regardless of whether they're getting back pay, many are breathing a sigh of relief they may not be out of work again or not getting paid again. kasie, we heard nancy pelosi talking about a vote after 6:30, after some of the members get back from north carolina. i believe there are a number of members there for a funeral. what's the timing we expect to happen tonight and when can we finally expect this all to be with the president? >> as you heard the speaker say, it is valentine's day so for the many spouses, partners, members of congress and all of us at the capitol, i think everyone is hoping it will be sooner rather than later. the reality is a little bit logistical quite frankly. first you're right, there's a
funeral for congressman walter jones today. many members are attending and told they should be back at 6:30 for votes. it also takes time for them to take the pages of this bill and process them appropriately and literally walk them down the hallway from the senate to the house. so we need time for that. last time we were going through this process, there was a hiccup or snag that delayed the process for an hour or two but usually is not a big issue, it simply keeps everybody here at the capitol a little longer. so -- >> kasie -- >> we were anticipating a 9:00 p.m. votish. >> something is developing now. let's go to garrett. have we concluded this vote in the senate? >> looks like wrapping it up, ali. last count i'm getting, it's just been called. the last count i have is not fully up to date but they got at least 84 yes votes here. as i was saying, still an overwhelming passing vote here despite the folks that voted against this both on the left, mainly the presidential
candidates, folks we know about and on the right folks i suspect we will hear issues about the length of the bill, not getting a chance to read it or not liking everything thrown in at the last minute. >> thank you all. that wraps up this busy hour for me but before we hand it over to "deadline: white house," road to the white house news, this just in, msnbc along with nbc news and telemundo will host the very first democratic debate of the 2020 democratic cycle. the democratic national committee announcing the first of many debates for many candidates but we have the first one here on msnbc in june. looking forward to it. i'm ali velshi. see you back here tomorrow. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we begin with breaking news that will test your faith in accidents and coincidences. on a day former fbi director andy mccabe's book was previewed